Pages

The Kalam gets another beatdown

A while back I pointed out that the Kalam commits the fallacy of equivocation two separate times. I've talked in other posts about the erroneous scientific assumptions in the argument as well, but now someone with much more free time than I has authored an extensive and thorough rebuttal of "Kalam cosmology", such as it is. There are two very in-depth articles here:

Essentially, the Kalam – and pretty much all belief in a theistic creator – is dependent on the notion that the Big Bang is the finite beginning of the universe, and there absolutely was not and could not have been anything before that. The universe began at the so-called "cosmological singularity" – the moment of God's creation. Except that's wrong. I'm headed to bed, but I liked this quote, because I've said a before that the singularity is merely an artifact of general relativity.

And this is the main problem: the mere idea of a singularity ignores quantum mechanics. As physicist Bruce Basset puts it, “The speed of light, c, and Newton’s constant, G, are the only constants of the theory [of General Relativity]. But Planck’s constant, h, appears nowhere. … Why is Planck’s constant important? When the average inter-particle distance becomes about the same size as an atom, then classical physics fails and quantum effects start to become important. As the density of the universe steeply rises, most cosmologists believe there must come a point at which Einstein’s equations fail and are simply wrong, since they don’t include any quantum effects” (Introducing Relativity, Pg.167-168 ).